It documents how scientists who see an intelligent force at work in nature are being fired from their jobs.

They are being slandered as "Creationists" and religious fundamentalists. Any mention of "Intelligent Design" is forbidden.

Isn't this appalling? Science is supposed to explain the complex intelligence manifest in the natural world, not deny that it exists.

The offending scientists are not "religious." They simply know that a single cell is more complex than an atom bomb. Obviously, an amazing intelligence is at work. Call it God or Intelligent Design. Call it "John Doe" - but you can't deny it!

Some people think I'm a Christian or a religious Jew. I am neither. Like these scientists, I can see the obvious. Creation is a miracle which didn't happen by accident. It's governed by laws which scientists and metaphysicians are supposed to discern.

But mention "intelligent design" today and your career is over. Why are "secularists" so afraid of intelligent design?

Because they're funded by the Illuminati, (Rockefellers, Rothschilds etc.) who are Satanists. Satanists fear that acceptance of this "intelligence" will interfere with the makeover they're giving humanity. They think they are God.

Secularism pretends to be about freedom and tolerance but that's a ruse. It is Satanism in disguise and nothing freaks a Satanist more than
the rumor of God or anything resembling Him.

Watch the trailer! The secularists are more fanatical than any religious cult. They are a satanic cult. They deny the obvious! They have to expel scientists! They have to stop free inquiry and debate!

It documents how scientists who see an intelligent force at work in nature are being fired from their jobs.

They are being slandered as "Creationists" and religious fundamentalists. Any mention of "Intelligent Design" is forbidden.

Isn't this appalling? Science is supposed to explain the complex intelligence manifest in the natural world, not deny that it exists.

The offending scientists are not "religious." They simply know that a single cell is more complex than an atom bomb. Obviously, an amazing intelligence is at work. Call it God or Intelligent Design. Call it "John Doe" - but you can't deny it!

Some people think I'm a Christian or a religious Jew. I am neither. Like these scientists, I can see the obvious. Creation is a miracle which didn't happen by accident. It's governed by laws which scientists and metaphysicians are supposed to discern.

But mention "intelligent design" today and your career is over. Why are "secularists" so afraid of intelligent design?

Because they're funded by the Illuminati, (Rockefellers, Rothschilds etc.) who are Satanists. Satanists fear that acceptance of this "intelligence" will interfere with the makeover they're giving humanity. They think they are God.

Secularism pretends to be about freedom and tolerance but that's a ruse. It is Satanism in disguise and nothing freaks a Satanist more than
the rumor of God or anything resembling Him.

Watch the trailer! The secularists are more fanatical than any religious cult. They are a satanic cult. They deny the obvious! They have to expel scientists! They have to stop free inquiry and debate!

It will not be long now...Seriously though, there is a better name used over satanism, and generally hidden from common consumption which sets the agenda, Humanism. Wrote on this awhile back, here is the link for your review, if you like:http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=455972&postcount=77

And what makes this so funny to me now is the heat taken for just sharing the information...Peace In my sister friend, for real.

I've seen the "documentary", and it was quite poor. The claims were rubbish and there was a constant tinge of intellectual dishonesty throughout the entire thing. Anything that doesn't agree with his views gets misrepresented into a grotesque strawman that Benstein thought made it easier to attack. These tactics ranged from subtle fallacies to outright lying (inventing and editing Darwin quotes). As for his claims about scientist being denied tenure or censored, they were complete B.S. There's been plenty of good criticism offered up already about the film.

Even by creationist fundamentalist standards, it was pretty poor form.

I've seen the "documentary", and it was quite poor. The claims were rubbish and there was a constant tinge of intellectual dishonesty throughout the entire thing. Anything that doesn't agree with his views gets misrepresented into a grotesque strawman that Benstein thought made it easier to attack. These tactics ranged from subtle fallacies to outright lying (inventing and editing Darwin quotes). As for his claims about scientist being denied tenure or censored, they were complete B.S. There's been plenty of good criticism offered up already about the film.

Even by creationist fundamentalist standards, it was pretty poor form.

Click to expand...

Your post sounds impressive Gorilla, but lacking substance. Is it possible to support the following with evidence? In other words show and prove the following assertions:

1. The claims were rubbish and there was a constant tinge of intellectual dishonesty throughout the entire thing.

2. Anything that doesn't agree with his views gets misrepresented into a grotesque strawman that Benstein thought made it easier to attack.

4. As for his claims about scientist being denied tenure or censored, they were complete B.S.

5. There's been plenty of good criticism offered up already about the film. Even by creationist fundamentalist standards, it was pretty poor form.

And take your time, there is no rush. The underlined is basically what I'm looking for.

Click to expand...

No need to rush.

I'll knock out the first three using an example about Darwin that shows misrepresentation, dishonesty, malicious editing and quote mining:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Click to expand...

Quote from the Descent of Man used in the film.

Actual passage:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Click to expand...

The next sentence in the book:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Click to expand...

This serious misrepresentation of Darwin's writing was used to try and relate it to the holocaust. Ironically, the antisemitism came from religion and the religious in Europe. It was around long before Darwin and long after him.

There are scientist who are religious, and seem to compartmentalize when doing their work. If Collins applied to teach at a University and then for tenure, he'd have no problems. He's also never been censored. Criticism is not the same as censorship.

I'll knock out the first three using an example about Darwin that shows misrepresentation, dishonesty, malicious editing and quote mining:

Quote from the Descent of Man used in the film.

Actual passage:

The next sentence in the book:

This serious misrepresentation of Darwin's writing was used to try and relate it to the holocaust. Ironically, the antisemitism came from religion and the religious in Europe. It was around long before Darwin and long after him.

There are scientist who are religious, and seem to compartmentalize when doing their work. If Collins applied to teach at a University and then for tenure, he'd have no problems. He's also never been censored. Criticism is not the same as censorship.

Let's keep this simple, please list each contention(in blue) separately followed by your resources, references and comments. Myself and viewers should be afforded clarity of understanding without going back and forth connecting the dots. Again, keep it simple, knocking out the first three with trailers to follow isn't professional, especially when you've been told to take your time, there is no rush.

In fact, I'm waiting for your full organized argument before digesting the fragments.

Let's keep this simple, please list each contention(in blue) separately followed by your resources, references and comments. Myself and viewers should be afforded clarity of understanding without going back and forth connecting the dots. Again, keep it simple, knocking out the first three with trailers to follow isn't professional, especially when you've been told to take your time, there is no rush.

In fact, I'm waiting for your full organized argument before digesting the fragments.

Click to expand...

That was it. My criticism was that it was poorly done and full of dishonesty.

I see no need to do the first three separately since that one particular example meets all of their criteria.

I'll knock out the first three using an example about Darwin that shows misrepresentation, dishonesty, malicious editing and quote mining:

Quote from the Descent of Man used in the film.

Actual passage:

The next sentence in the book:

This serious misrepresentation of Darwin's writing was used to try and relate it to the holocaust. Ironically, the antisemitism came from religion and the religious in Europe. It was around long before Darwin and long after him.

There are scientist who are religious, and seem to compartmentalize when doing their work. If Collins applied to teach at a University and then for tenure, he'd have no problems. He's also never been censored. Criticism is not the same as censorship.

After reviewing links, comments and sources provided in support of the (5)assertions, expectantly, opponents of Intelligent Design, as well as yourself, seem to miss the political ramifications intended by the film; and instead argue Intelligent Design is not legitimate science, on the basis of no peer reviewed articles. There is simply no attempt at debunking the idea of Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity.

Sorry, but I reject out of hand your contentions as insignificant and irrelevant, Gorilla.